Ads proclaiming, "Why believe in a god?' Just be good for goodness' sake" will appear on Washington D.C., buses starting this week and running through December.' The American Humanist Association recently announced the controversial $40,000 holiday campaign.Fred Edwords, spokesman for the humanist group told the Associated Press: "Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion." No matter what side of the Christmas and God wars you may be on, that is one lame excuse for challenging the majority of people in the United States who are "believers" (92% according a poll by the Pew Research Center).'I am Jewish and have never felt "alone" because the end-of-the-year holiday event of the country was "Christian"; Christmas is a lovely spectacle no matter what your beliefs, and for those who are seriously Christian, it is additionally a sacred time.Last month, the British Humanist Association upped the ante with their bus sign campaign, which said: "There's probably no God.' Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." At least the American version still holds to the idea of doing good , while the British version is like letting kids go wild in a candy store claiming there are no such things as cavities or obesity.''''American Family Association president, Tim Wildmon, calls the American Humanist's ad, "...stupid.' How do we define 'good' if we don't believe in God?' God in his word, the Bible, tells us what's good and bad and right and wrong.' If we are each ourselves defining what's good, it's going to be a crazy world." Don Feder, editor of the "Boycott The New York Times" website, demanded equal space in the New York Times for the display of religious symbols as he perceives the paper to have a "relentless drive to secularize society." Feder writes: "The New York Times gives the game away when it insists that public property 'must be open to all religions on an equal basis - or open to none at all.'' In other words, a town that chooses to display the Ten Commandments - which are sacred to 90% of the American people and an integral part of our nation's heritage - has to give equal space to every other faith and New Age sect that's out there.' In reality, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was intended to prohibit a state church, like the Church of England.'"If the Founders thought giving one religion preference was odious, why was Congress's first official act to hire a Christian chaplain?' And why did the first Congress appropriate sums of money for Christian missionaries to the Indian tribes?' What about 'In God We Trust' on our currency and 'One Nation under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance - which clearly give preference to Judeo- Christian tradition over Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Summunism?" To read more from Don Feder's point of view: www.boycottnyt.com and www.aim.org . More >>

A listener labeled his email to me:'"The Newest Movie "Trash" Banned in Utah! Go Utah!" I read recently that some parts of Utah had banned the release of the new film "Zack and Miri Make a Porno". The film is about a guy and girl who have nothing better in their dull lives to do but to produce a pornographic film together just for the fun of it. I, for one, am sick and tired of films that exploit women AND men!!! Whatever happened to going to the cinema and watching a good movie? Thank God that Utah, a state that won't forfeit its values and morals, stands up to films such as these, and won't let them play in theaters there. I am a high school teacher, and believe me, Dr. Laura, our kids are craving to be taught values and morals. They want direction. They need direction. Films like these are teaching them that sex is just something that can be played with. I teach a student who has been sexually abused by his own stepfather, and I'm trying to guide him and show him a bit of comfort that he has never received....It breaks my heart to know what he has suffered, and it also breaks my heart to see students being exposed to trashy sex and stupid behavior on film. This kind of sick mess makes our jobs much more difficult in the teaching arena.... it's time that we did something about this trash that's being shown to our children. " This email coincided with a US News and World Report study that sounds like "yes/no yes/no" silliness. The new research suggests that teens who spend the most time watching sexually charged television shows are twice as likely to become pregnant or impregnate someone else.No kidding.' My generation grew up on The Flying Nun and Leave it to Beaver .' I never knew anyone who knew anyone who got pregnant in high-school.'Here's where the back-and-forth nonsense begins.' First, the report says that these findings don't prove that sexy programming causes pregnancy - well, of course it doesn't " cause " pregnancy.' But it is clear that a permissive media has a huge influence on impressionable teens, opening them up to behaviors which are not in their best interests, emotionally or medically.'Interestingly, the researchers refused to "name names" with respect to which television shows they considered "sexually charged."' I guess they don't want to be open to lawsuits for suggesting that there are specific programs on the air that hurt children by opening them up to behaviors which could lead to unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, or the psychological trauma of sexual abuse.Dr. Dimitri A. Christakis, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington who studies kids and television says that these findings "add to the growing body of evidence that what children see on screen affects their behavior in real life." I've always gotten a laugh from much of what psychological research - a soft science at best - finds.' They state the obvious like it was a revelation and they get grant money to do it.'Let's see, if we didn't think that media impacted how people behave in real life, how long would the advertising business last?' Oh please, they pay millions for product placement movies...to influence you,'' They pay millions for seconds of promotion on SuperBowl Sunday...to influence you.' It must work.' So to be "surprised" at the impact of images and behavior the media immerses our children in has got to be some kind of joke.Back to the beginning... hooray for Utah.' Parents who want to expose their children to "trash" can always buy it on the Internet. More >>

The great state of Nebraska was the last state of the union to sign what became the most comprehensive child safe haven law in America.' In most states, the law specifies that an infant can be left at a "safe-haven" - usually meaning a hospital or a fire department...somewhere the child will get immediate attention - without the parent having to suffer any legal ramifications.' Since the law took effect in July, some twenty-three children have been brought to safe-havens...some across state lines.Obviously, this idea came about as a means of saving lives.' The thought was that now people who might toss their babies into dumpsters or abuse them would have the opportunity to save their lives by putting them in the care of responsible people.' From here, appropriate child care would be found through adoptions or the care of appropriate and willing relatives.' I always thought this was a great idea.I had fits hearing criticism that this is abandonment or passing on responsibility.' Children in the hands of parents addicted to drugs or alcohol, suffering from various mental illnesses and overwhelmed, barely functional and generally desperate, or simply unwilling are at great risk - and if even one of them has the compassion and good sense to make use of a safe-haven...then we have saved a life...not only from death...but from abuse and a childhood leading only to troubles and problems.Society is always better off when unwanted children have opportunities with adoptive families, quality foster-families, or placement with relatives who might not even have known there was a problem.' These children will have a better chance to grow up more adjusted, and that will obviously minimize bad "acting out" (sexual or criminal variety)' or substance abuse to quell emotional pain.Unfortunately, because of criticism aimed at parents who take advantage of protecting their children rather than harming them, the Governor of Nebraska, Dave Heinemen, is calling a special session of the legislature to change the state's unique safe-haven law - amending it so that it applies only to infants up to 3 days old.' I believe this is a HUGE mistake.The communications office of the Governor prepared a statement for all Nebraskans explaining his point of view. "Children from eight families have been left at hospitals under the safe haven law.' None of the children involved were infants and one was in immediate danger.' Courts are likely to require parents and guardians to participate in parenting classes, family therapy, conflict resolution or other services in an effort to reunite youth with their families." I'm delighted that the Governor points out that there are services that MIGHT...only might...eliminate the necessity for the safe-haven - but very often, parental termination might be in the best interest of children of any age.The Governor points out that safe haven laws were not designed to allow families having difficulty with older youth and teenagers to "abandon their children or responsibilities as parents." Well, some parents just can't or won't be responsible...and abandonment would be to throw them out of the house...not deliver them to people who can help.The Governor further suggests that parents considering safe-haven might turn to local health and human services offices...well, sometimes those are not as available or supportive or empowered to remedy a desperately difficult situation.While I support his concern about protecting infants in danger...they are not the only children who need such protection.I hope Nebraska keeps its child safe haven law and doesn't dilute it down to 3-day newborns. More >>

Newark, New Jersey's Roman Catholic archbishop, John Myers,' is upset that part of Bill Maher's movie, Religulous (a combination of the words "religion" and "ridiculous"), was filmed at a Bergen County parish under false pretenses.' Maher told the parish's Very Reverend Charles Grandstrand that he wanted to film his Jewish mother there, because the church was such a big part of her life.' His father was a Catholic.' Maher told the parish folks that the movie he was making would be called A Spiritual Journey .Recently, during his appearance on Larry King's CNN program to promote his activities, Maher said: "This is funny.' Religion accusing me of deception.'' Religion, the greatest scam in the history of the world...selling the invisible product for thousands of years, accusing us of deception? [he laughs] We don't lie to people.'' What we didn't tell people [i.e., when he was producing the movie] was that it was me doing the interview.' They didn't ask, and we didn't feel an obligation to tell them." This is such hypocrisy that I can hardly type.' Hypocrisy, for those who use it as a daily epithet towards somebody whose point of view they simply don't like, is a behavior of espousing and living in counterpoint.' He accuses religious folks of lying about the divine and about faith, while he lies to people to use and embarrass them.' And this, my friends, gets you a television show, after losing another one for calling the September 11 terrorists braver than Americans. More >>

I was at first stunned - then not - to read that research from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health points toward white, middle aged women as being particularly prone to depression leading to suicides.' I'm a middle aged, white, female baby-boomer, so this caught my attention, especially since the researchers seemed clueless as to what would be behind this spike.Having talked to women for over thirty years on the radio, I think I know.' We middle-aged, white females from the sixties were sold a bill of goods by the originally well-meaning women's movement.' The bits about equal pay for equal experience and competence were kind of a no-brainer.' The bits about men, marriage, sex, babies, and home-making being negatives in our lives - because, of course, they were oppressive and demeaning - also seemed obvious at the time.' So, with the introduction of consciousness raising (that is, learning to mistrust, not need, and even loathe men) and women's studies programs (which conceived of elevating women by making them perpetually angry victims), we were on our way to a collision course to today: depression and suicide.Women who dared to buck the feminista trend and actually marry and make babies, kept close to the sisterhood by not being very sexual, loving, or sensitive to their husbands - or just kept them as shack-up studs - and put their babies in day-care.' They did all of that so they could work at their careers full-time and have financial power.' The thinking was, what if "he" took off with some bimbo or died on them?' Money is power and safety!' They also did all of that so they could feel like "somebody."' I still have women tell me today that they only allow themselves to feel good when they have a successful career; the loving appreciation of a husband and children are swept aside like so much emotional dandruff.'These white, middle-aged, female baby-boomers starved themselves of the fulfilling emotional meal of actually being a hands-on mom in addition to being their husband's girlfriend.' Many of them are now divorced, and their adult children hardly spend time any time with them.' The kids learned how to spend time without Mom because she was so "busy, busy, busy" while they were growing up.I'm not surprised that so many of these women are depressed and suicidal.' Feministas lied to them that they could and would "have it all:" they only had to sacrifice the loveliest parts of their womanhood.I'm not among them, because I caught myself entering that depressive state.' I've been there...done that.' Saved by a marriage and a child! More >>

When was the last time you took your kids to the airport and bought some candy and magazines?' Did you notice what your kids see at their "short-eye-level" when you pay for your items?' They see what they can also notice at many grocery store check-out lines and magazine racks:' they see soft porn - half-naked, provocative photos of well-endowed men and women.Now, I'm no prude.' I wear jeans below my waist, and I have some belly-button "bling."' But I do believe that there ought to be such a thing as a free society maintaining its First Amendment rights, while at the same time jealously protecting the innocence of children.A recent female caller complained that her boyfriend occasionally looked at some photos or videos of naked women on the Internet.' It is unbelievable to me that, lately,' there is such hysteria about men viewing naked women or male/female sexual encounters.' Did somebody just discover that men are very interested in sex and are visually stimulated by viewing women's bodies?Of course, Internet porn can be a problem, particularly when it becomes compulsive and a substitute for real-life intimacy, or self-medication for emotional problems.' However, much of the time, it is just a curious male having a stimulating moment.I brought up to that caller that I thought the guys who do the workout ads for some of those exercise machines are "hunks," and exciting to see.' She agreed.' If all I did was play a continuous loop of these ads, I'd be having a serious emotional problem.' There is a huge difference between "casual," and "compulsive."That said, our society has a big problem making "crass" more casual in the public square.' The fashion police should arrest most of those young women with big bellies and big butts hanging over those ridiculously low-cut, tight jeans, and short, too-tight tops, as well as young men with no tops, and with their pants falling just at or below their pubic hair line.' Their parents either don't care, or have given up attempting to be leaders, or have joined the ranks of the "crass" themselves.This society should shun malls that harbor Victoria's Secret, Abercrombie & Fitch, and Frederick's of Hollywood, as these are establishments which use provocative photos and displays to promote their products within clear view of families and children walking through the malls.' I mean, there you are with your adolescent sons and daughters, looking up at practically naked women and men in their underwear, with seductive looks in their eyes.' What are you supposed to say to your children about that?These images tell your children that sexuality, nudity, their bodies, and intimacy are just "everyday stuff" - no big deal, certainly not private, and definitely not special.' Is that the lesson you want them to learn?One mother of a 12 year old boy wrote to me that after they came home from their town's mall in which they personally experienced all of the stuff I've just mentioned, he suggested that they should do their shopping online from now on.Not a bad idea. More >>

A recent female caller wondered if she should stay with and even marry a guy who spent the full first year of their relationship being violent.I immediately said, "You're a grown woman.' If you want to play Russian Roulette with your life you have the right to do that.' Please, though, have your Fallopian tubes tied so that you can't bring any babies into this situation to either be hurt directly or indirectly by a messed up, violent home-life."She wanted to know if people can change.' Well, the correct answer is....YES!' Of course people can change.' When people are motivated and disciplined and committed to being, thinking, and doing things differently, they can most definitely evolve in a positive direction.' It does take time and simply acknowledging the need for change is not (contrary to popular thought) 50% of the problem.' You all know that's true because every one of you remembers making a New Year's Resolution - which clearly acknowledges a need for change - and even a plan....which just evaporated with time and ennui.Therefore, in the context of this woman's call, a person prone to violence is not one who is going to make a quick change.' The caller wanted to know if there was hope that in the future...no matter how distant...that he could be different.' Well, sure - IF he makes the commitment and is committed long term to whatever it takes to change his way of looking at the world, intimate relationships, and his own identity.An interesting fact is that when people do make such profound changes, they rarely are interested in the people who wanted them when they were less positively functional, as they recognize that it takes a less functional person to be attracted to same.' Said in a bit 'o different way: emotionally healthy people, even though they may protest love and compassion, just don't commit their lives to a recalcitrant, unwilling to change, difficult, or dangerous person.' It is because of their own sad inner dynamics that they find solace in being involved with an unhealthy person...it makes them feel needed or puts the responsibility for their unhappiness somewhere else or is simply a place to hide from the threat of not being capable of a good life.This particular caller thanked me for my advice...I asked her to tell me what my advice was; she said, "I don't want to play roulette with my life."' I gave her kudos for making a healthy and good choice.' I also told her that she'd feel stupid for the time already spent, lonely for the company, scared of being alone, and more...but that this decision was still a healthy and good choice.You see...she is the one in her life she had the power and the necessity to change; focusing on him was just a way to hide from that.I love the beginning of happy endings...and that call was one of those. More >>

I had an interesting call just the other day.' A husband and wife, each on their second marriages, called because the family dog, a dachshund, was consumed by a coyote.' The wife wanted to know how or if she could ever forgive her husband for this "National Geographic" moment.' It seems they've been feuding for quite a while: he doesn't like the dog to pee in the backyard and make the grass yellow; she doesn't like the dog to be loose in the street to pee because he could get eaten.'While these two were fighting, the dog got eaten.The righteousness in her presentation was astounding. It seemed she was willing to dismiss yet another marriage because she labeled her husband responsible for the dog's demise as he let the dog out.I asked her who the 'alpha' person in the dog's life was - every dog, no matter how attached to all family members, identifies the 'alpha' person as its owner and "main squeeze."' She immediately jumped in to say it was just everybody's dog.' He quietly offered that she had the dog before they married.' Oops!I then told her that she was responsible for the dog's death as she was not taking responsibility to walk the dog three or so times a day for its exercise and for it to eliminate itself where (a) it wouldn't damage their home property and (b) she could make sure the dog was safe.' That she was sad her dog was dead was reasonable; that she was looking for a cause of this event was reasonable; that she was blaming other than herself in combination with what is "nature's way" was plainly unreasonable.I suggested she apologize to her husband and promise, should she want another dog, to take personal responsibility for that animal.This leads me to a recent news headline, "Icelanders irate at lenders who ruined country." It seems that only one year after winning the United Nation's "best country to live in" poll, with its residents rated the most contented in the world, the result of a country's decision to swap cod fishing for a complex debt-laden economy exacted a heavy toll.They were encouraged by the government to upgrade to a more luxurious lifestyle by buying houses and cars that were financed by 100 percent loans with extraordinarily low interest rates based not on their own money, the strong krona, but based upon a spread of foreign currencies.According to news reports, "Icelanders are also increasingly angry, looking for somewhere to point blame for the country's spectacular fall."' "Somebody has to take responsibility," said one father complaining that his son has lost his savings.It took one 21 year old print machinist, Alvin Zogu, to give the most mature response: "We can learn from what they did wrong.' We can make better decisions." While governments and banks can offer "pie in the sky," it takes the individual decision to gorge themselves with pie while dangling in the air to cause the ultimate fall. More >>

Here's a simple test for you to contemplate:'What do you get when you leave a golden retriever dog in a car on a hot day with the windows cracked a bit, and the dog dies from being cooked in that car oven?' Well, you get arrested for felony animal cruelty, with bail set at $20,000 while you await your trial, which, if convicted, will get you about three years in jail.Okay, did you get that one right?' Probably.' Next test is:' What do you get when you leave a human child in a car on a hot day with the window not cracked a bit, and the child dies from being cooked in that car oven?' You get to be on Oprah! with an entire audience of dewy-eyed women exuding understanding and sympathy.Disgusting.Here are a few view responses to that program: "I too saw that Oprah episode.' I scoffed and hissed as I watched the 'sympathetic nodding' of Oprah's audience who were apparently relating to the distracted, forgetful 'busyness' of a mother who was asked by her husband to drop the baby off at day care that morning.' According to this woman, that was something her husband normally did, and it was outside of her daily routine. She had a lot on her mind and was concentrating on what the day had in store for her at work.' That was her reason for forgetting the baby in the car!' I just wanted to scream!' Then a thought came to my little pea brain.' I wondered if these 'understanding' women in the audience would actually 'understand' if their husbands forgot their birthday, Christmas, Valentine's Day, or Mother's Day because he was stressed and busy, concentrating on work, blah blah blah. Hmmmm.....yeah, I don't think so; we all know what these women would think of their controlling, nasty, insensitive husbands for forgetting these important things in life." Oh yes, there was one thing that mother did remember.' With the forgotten, ignored, unimportant human being in the back seat, she evidently did make a hurried stop to get donuts for the staff, which means the child was also left alone in the car while she got those all-important calorie-laden munchies.Right after I brought this travesty up on my radio program, I received an email from a single, twenty-three year old man, who had been watching this Oprah episode with his girlfriend of two years.' His immediate take was that the woman, the audience, and Oprah were being utterly disgusting, offering sympathy to a woman - a mother - who didn't have her child on her mind.' It seems he went on and on to his girlfriend about the sacred obligations of a mother - i.e., putting the child first - and about how awful it was to see women clucking in sympathy for this neglectful mother and not for the buried child. His girlfriend was in sympathy with the audience and was aghast that he would have such a "cold, cruel" non-understanding point of view.'''He decided at that moment to break off with her, because he couldn't see any woman with that point of view being his girlfriend, wife, and certainly not the mother of his precious children.I tell you, I was very impressed that we have such real men among our young people today.'When Oprah and other feminist, liberal, influential women take the point of view that children are not the first priority, when they coo over the "pain" of a mother who leaves her child to slowly cook to death in a car instead of storming the citadel demanding jail time for reckless endangerment, neglect and manslaughter, then we have women telling women to have compassion for irresponsibility, self-centeredness and murder.' When we have compassion for evil, we show disdain for the innocent victim.Shame on Oprah. More >>

In response to last Thursday's (10/9/08) blog , in which I was critical of the Department of Feminist Studies at the University of California's Santa Barbara campus (and all those in the USA for that matter), I received a personal letter from Leila J. Rupp, Professor of Feminist Studies and Associate Dean of Social Sciences which confirmed that I was right in assuming that they would never invite me to address their students.' She writes: "You're right if all you have to offer is indoctrination.' We are interested in education." To reiterate my "points of indoctrination," I wondered whether this Feminist Studies program would be all inclusive: Is it going to be critical or celebratory over home-making, traditional family values, home schooling, religion, mothering only after marriage, qualities of a good wife, at-home mothering, avoiding divorce (except in cases of abuse, addiction or affairs) and choosing adoption over abortion? I also suggested avoiding abortion as birth control, "shacking up," friends with "benefits," and buying the lie that hired help and day care are equivalent or superior to a Mommy.It is amazing how these simple concepts have become "indoctrination" and controversial.' If these issues cannot be presented, what in the heck does the Feminist Studies program call "diversity?"' Perhaps it's just different ethnicities all saying the same thing. More >>